Do you still consider Nanotyrannus a valid genus or are you just going off of how this display was labeled? I'm pretty sure the general scientific consensus is that "Nanotyrannus" were juvenile Tyrannosaurus rex. Then again what do I know. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
@Hipporex I would certainly say it's likely Nanotyrannus is a juvenile Tyrannosaurus, but not definite. If Nanotyrannus is a juvenile of its larger, more famous, sympatric relative, then that means it changed a lot during ontogeny, and moreso than Albertosaurus, Gorgosaurus, and the like. If it's not the same as T. rex, then Hell Creek was like the Nemegt Formation in that gigantic, powerful tyrannosaurs were sympatric with smaller, more gracile, slender-snouted species designed to hunt relatively smaller and faster prey.
Personally, I do not have a strong opinion either way, even if I would lean toward Nanotyrannus being a juvenile. I think the various historically named dinosaur species of Latest Maastrictian Laramidia may be different ontogenetic stages in some examples or different-but-related taxa in other cases, or maybe even sexual dimorphism in others. I think it's more complicated then either, "They're all just ontogenetic stages," or, "They're all different taxa," and scientists need to look at each taxon and/or ontogenetic stage at a case-by-case basis.
@Anniella Just for the record, I knew most of that already. Regardless that's a very well thought out more response with a lot more effort than I'd put into one. Also I agree it's an amazing specimen.
